Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

Yep, sounds lovely, but who do you think is making the appointments to the all singing and dancing "independent" body?  Who will be assessing whether it's "doing it's job properly"?

 

If there is one thing the UK establishment remains peerless at it's an old fashioned stitch up.  This is the thin end of the wedge, imo.

as with nearly everything there is an ultimate responsibility to the gvmt. The proposals were a very fair and independent set of reccomendations. Interestingly the biggest objectors are the press themselves and those who they typically support, not the majority of joe public

To be honest if Joe Public lacks the imagination as to why, for the first time ever, Government wishes to insert itself at the top of the tree governing the media then they deserve what they get.

interesting view. What you are basically saying is that there should be no regulatory bodies anywhere? Because surely all have ultimate responsibility to gvmt?

In this case its a fair proposal from leveson based on the impartiality of who and what proposed it surely

[Awol]

 

 

 

Yep, sounds lovely, but who do you think is making the appointments to the all singing and dancing "independent" body?  Who will be assessing whether it's "doing it's job properly"?

 

If there is one thing the UK establishment remains peerless at it's an old fashioned stitch up.  This is the thin end of the wedge, imo.

as with nearly everything there is an ultimate responsibility to the gvmt. The proposals were a very fair and independent set of reccomendations. Interestingly the biggest objectors are the press themselves and those who they typically support, not the majority of joe public

To be honest if Joe Public lacks the imagination as to why, for the first time ever, Government wishes to insert itself at the top of the tree governing the media then they deserve what they get.

interesting view. What you are basically saying is that there should be no regulatory bodies anywhere? Because surely all have ultimate responsibility to gvmt?

Er, no, I haven't said anything remotely like that!

[drat01]

Ok i am confused in what you are saying then, maybe you can explain a bit clearer. Independent bodies exist in various other are s of life but ultimately like so many things the buck will always stop at the gvmt. I am confused by what you are proposing, is it that the media should be a different case, if so why? If not what are you saying? Thx

[Awol]

Ok i am confused in what you are saying then, maybe you can explain a bit clearer. Independent bodies exist in various other are s of life but ultimately like so many things the buck will always stop at the gvmt. I am confused by what you are proposing, is it that the media should be a different case, if so why? If not what are you saying? Thx

It's very simple, currently the press is not regulated by politicians. If the Royal Charter is implemented it will be. I take the view that once in place it is naive in the extreme not to expect creeping control being exerted over the press through insidious political pressure and further to that, once the principle of state regulation is accepted it can be amended at a later date - death by a thousand cuts.

 

I think it's a red line that shouldn't be crossed and has nothing to do with regulatory bodies in any other industry. 

 

I can't make it any clearer than that.

[blandy]

What about TV and radio being regulated for ages by OFCOM?

[drat01]

See awol as pete showed earlier your view is wrong. But tonight its interesting that cross party support is seemingly in place, lets hope they follow through and the correct controls and overseers are put in place on what is obviously a part of society that often falls outside of what is acceptable in a tolerant and socially aware society

What about TV and radio being regulated for ages by OFCOM?

pete could it be that typically tv and radio are less politically motivated and sponsored

[Awol]

Blandy:

TV and radio are regulated and most serious people get real current affairs analysis from neither - because it's infotainment with the cutting edge of angel delight.

Drat:

The fact someone else agrees with you doesn't invalidate other contrary opinion. That's how opinions opinions work...

[blandy]

See awol as pete showed earlier your view is wrong. But tonight its interesting that cross party support is seemingly in place, lets hope they follow through and the correct controls and overseers are put in place on what is obviously a part of society that often falls outside of what is acceptable in a tolerant and socially aware society

What about TV and radio being regulated for ages by OFCOM?

pete could it be that typically tv and radio are less politically motivated and sponsored

I think they're compelled to be by OFCOM. That's not necessarily a good thing for the press. Though that's arguable.

I only raised OFCOM to demonstrate that gov't regulation in another form, for a different part of the media has been going on for ages, because AWOL implied it hadn't.

I don't think (party biased political interference actually is what the press is worried about. I think they were worried about money and the internet.

There's every reason to have a free press. Free from political censorship or interference. There's also every reason to fear or regret an irresponsible press.

I quite like the principle behine AWOL's view. Kind of if the press does something illegal (phone hacking etc.) then take them to court. Trouble is that's not possible because the law isn't available to all in the way it should be.

The press and politicians are (or were) far too close, and thus papers sometimes did the work of politicians for them, at other times, the politicians returned the favours. Murdoch, and papers like the Mirror, Mail, Telegrpah etc. have at times been like house journals for various parties. In return for what we can speculate.

The practicality is that there was rot at the core of the press and it needs cleaning out.

Whether this proposal will totally do it is doubtful, I think.

I don't think that it is party political based, and I don't think it equates to the second estate having new power over the third estate. That's where I disagree with AWOL.

[drat01]

Awol, i am now lost by your point, sorry. Pete was quoting i believe the text behind leveson, which sort of proved your view on how it would work to be wrong, hence the point i made (and pete). I suspect that not many would agree with your view on this nor yon dismissal of the tv argument, but there you go. Not much to be said i suppose but watch this space on how it all maps out

[Awol]

I don't think that it is party political based, and I don't think it equates to the second estate having new power over the third estate. That's where I disagree with AWOL.

 

 

Just on that point, my view is that it will not be a brazen exercise of power, the establishment is far too subtle to do things so overtly, but that someone owing their position to political patronage cannot fail to be influenced by it - particularly when it's those same patrons who are reviewing the "independent" body's performance...

 

I start from the basic premise that no one in Westminster is to be trusted and that any grab to further centralise power towards that particular place is a bad thing. When (and I understand we just have a different view here) that institution acquires the power to shape the very fabric not just of political dialogue but the means by which it is debated at large, we have a very serious problem. Politicians by their very nature are control freaks pursuing power, it's why they are there in the first place. Given the chance to abuse it, now or in the future, they won't be able to help themselves.

 

Anyway, points made by all in a good natured way. Not bad this civility lark... 

[AshVilla]

 

So what are you guys thoughts on the Energy companies raising prices by a huge amount again

 

Is it because Red Ed has scared them into raising their prices now in case they get into power and freeze prices?

 

Can the government actually do anything about it?

this has nothing to do with milliband, shows a certain desperation if anyone blames that (plus the stupidity of the red ed thing is now somewhat tiresome). The energy companies have a track record of above inflation rises each year mostly. What they are doing is exactly what the debate should be and why they are allowed to do it especially for what are necessary services and have major impacts on such a lot of society

 

 

Apologies i just seen the Red Ed thing on the news i didn't think it was offensive

[blandy]

 

 

I don't think that it is party political based, and I don't think it equates to the second estate having new power over the third estate. That's where I disagree with AWOL.

 

 

Just on that point, my view is that it will not be a brazen exercise of power, the establishment is far too subtle to do things so overtly, but that someone owing their position to political patronage cannot fail to be influenced by it - particularly when it's those same patrons who are reviewing the "independent" body's performance...

 

I start from the basic premise that no one in Westminster is to be trusted and that any grab to further centralise power towards that particular place is a bad thing. When (and I understand we just have a different view here) that institution acquires the power to shape the very fabric not just of political dialogue but the means by which it is debated at large, we have a very serious problem. Politicians by their very nature are control freaks pursuing power, it's why they are there in the first place. Given the chance to abuse it, now or in the future, they won't be able to help themselves.

 

Anyway, points made by all in a good natured way. Not bad this civility lark... 

Aye, can't argue with the thrust of that, really. The only difference we have is that I have an much lower opinion of the tabloids collectively, than of the politicians collectively. I agree about the risk, almost certainty that politicians will over time grasp what wasn't intended in a law.

I could be wrong, but I don't see that kind of red flag with this regulation thing. That's not to say I think it'll work, but I do think it's better, even allowing for the risks, than what went before.

 

As to civility - Bog off!

[KennyPowers]

Well, I think we can all agree the daily mail is a shit right wing, homophobic, xenophobic, lying, Tory rag with past links to Nazism. And it is generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad.

What is there to debate?

 

Just how left wing is this forum?

 

You really think these gross, insulting generalisations are okay? You really think you are pursuing tolerance and progressiveness by smearing millions of people?

 

Now  I'm going to assume your post is deliberately provocative and slightly tongue-in-cheek but I'll be honest with you, I have respect for anyone who tries to influence the opinions of ignorant people through intelligent debate, through facts, statistics and thorough analysis. This new internet generation who don't have the time, patience or intelligence for this and jump straight to insults really aren't helping matters at all. 

 

And no, I don't buy the Daily Mail and never have. 

 

Interesting article I stumbled across in the Guardian today by Paul Dacre: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/left-daily-mail-paul-dacre

 

He sums up the hysterics of you hardline left-wingers pretty well. This campaign of the last few weeks is all because of the headline of the Ralph Milliband article. Now I read the article and even if you disagree with all or most of it, it was sourced pretty well. The headline was pretty objectionable but the hysterical response has been pretty unprecedented. 

[drat01]

 

Well, I think we can all agree the daily mail is a shit right wing, homophobic, xenophobic, lying, Tory rag with past links to Nazism. And it is generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad.

What is there to debate?

 

Just how left wing is this forum?

 

You really think these gross, insulting generalisations are okay? You really think you are pursuing tolerance and progressiveness by smearing millions of people?

 

Now  I'm going to assume your post is deliberately provocative and slightly tongue-in-cheek but I'll be honest with you, I have respect for anyone who tries to influence the opinions of ignorant people through intelligent debate, through facts, statistics and thorough analysis. This new internet generation who don't have the time, patience or intelligence for this and jump straight to insults really aren't helping matters at all. 

 

And no, I don't buy the Daily Mail and never have. 

 

Interesting article I stumbled across in the Guardian today by Paul Dacre: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/left-daily-mail-paul-dacre

 

He sums up the hysterics of you hardline left-wingers pretty well. This campaign of the last few weeks is all because of the headline of the Ralph Milliband article. Now I read the article and even if you disagree with all or most of it, it was sourced pretty well. The headline was pretty objectionable but the hysterical response has been pretty unprecedented. 

 

Interesting that you immediately go on to the offensive yourself with some insult about "left winged" etc.

 

Many many people think that the views shared by the Mail in particular are quite obscene. Now are you saying that if you feel this way you must be left wing, because if you are then that is quite a damning inditemnt for any right wing views.

 

Re the Dacre thing, blimey I must completely disagree about it being "interesting" other than the article shows the Man (and ultimately the rag he leads) to be quite a obnoxious person with little / no regard for something that you were exactly moaning about previously - respect.

[drat01]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10373105/Ministers-urged-to-forget-about-saving-failing-cities-and-towns-such-as-Hull-Hartlepool-and-Burnley.html

 

Re the Tory supporters and "influencers" in certain parts of the Media especially. They really are now becoming quite brazen about disclosing their true intentions. Complete and utter arseholes but certainly does make you wonder how many of the Gvmt share the views but do not have the balls to state it out in public

[drat01]

Not for the first time it seems that the Gvmt and especially Cameron have been caught telling lies about so called facts to try and vindicate their policies

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/09/david-cameron-accused-tax-break-benefits-married-couples

[KennyPowers]

That's a quite awful attempt to spell indictment. I sincerely doubt you've read the article by the way. 

 

This whole press regulation thing is quite amusing to me. It really separates the left wingers who are left wing based on their principles who I very much respect and I made this very clear in my post from the tribalists.

 

Labour MP Tom Harris: "By supporting Parliament’s Royal Charter for press regulation, to be agreed by the Privy Council at the end of this month, my party is turning its back on a core tenet of progressive politics: that a genuinely free press, however infuriating, is an indispensable foundation stone of democracy."

 

I mean people who think they are left-wing progressives wanting to restrict the free press is quite baffling. It can only be understood with reference to the power and reach of the right wing press which is what they actually want to restrict and they're quite happy to sacrifice their principles to do this. 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

Interesting that you immediately go on to the offensive yourself with some insult about "left winged" etc.

Oh God! Don't tell me that left wing is an offensive term now!!! Do I have to start referring to it as 'the LW words'?

[KennyPowers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10373105/Ministers-urged-to-forget-about-saving-failing-cities-and-towns-such-as-Hull-Hartlepool-and-Burnley.html

 

Re the Tory supporters and "influencers" in certain parts of the Media especially. They really are now becoming quite brazen about disclosing their true intentions. Complete and utter arseholes but certainly does make you wonder how many of the Gvmt share the views but do not have the balls to state it out in public

 

I'll have to read that article. I have great respect for the Economist. An extremely intelligent, thought provoking newspaper, you wouldn't like it. 

[drat01]

That's a quite awful attempt to spell indictment. I sincerely doubt you've read the article by the way. 

 

This whole press regulation thing is quite amusing to me. It really separates the left wingers who are left wing based on their principles who I very much respect and I made this very clear in my post from the tribalists.

 

Labour MP Tom Harris: "By supporting Parliament’s Royal Charter for press regulation, to be agreed by the Privy Council at the end of this month, my party is turning its back on a core tenet of progressive politics: that a genuinely free press, however infuriating, is an indispensable foundation stone of democracy."

 

I mean people who think they are left-wing progressives wanting to restrict the free press is quite baffling. It can only be understood with reference to the power and reach of the right wing press which is what they actually want to restrict and they're quite happy to sacrifice their principles to do this. 

 

Wow - a grammar Nazi I see. I suppose you show a certain disdain to things like Dyslexia in all of its forms too? Certainly shows a lot about you in a very quick time I would say

 

I see you continue with phrases like tribalists (interestingly not in the FireFox dictionary :-) ) as some sort of justification for the policy of the Press regulations. I suppose Leveson etc could now be classed as that maybe?  Agreed Tom Harris comments are certainly interesting, but I am not sure why you are quoting them. Is it a case of you saying that because a member of the Labour party has those views then that must be the whole thought process of that party and anyone who objects to the Tory Gvmt? A quick read back through this thread etc would show you that most people who support what is being proposed - ironically now agreed across all party lines - have fairly different political views.

 

I am actually quite amused at your last bit because again it shows no relation to what has been discussed in this thread for example.

 

 

 

Interesting that you immediately go on to the offensive yourself with some insult about "left winged" etc.

Oh God! Don't tell me that left wing is an offensive term now!!! Do I have to start referring to it as 'the LW words'?

 

Shame you did not actually read anything that was written, but hey ho off we go etc